Are The Prequels That Bad? — Page 3

Going back to effects, barring The Phantom Menace, actual, physical sets seemed so few and far between. Watching the Behind The Scenes stuff for the PT is usually just looking at a blue or green wall and floor with actors in front of it. At least TFA and RO seem to have had a lot more physical sets and locations to me.

Believe it or not, TPM had extensive physical work done on it. Coruscant is a big one, they constructed the majority of the buildings as miniatures, George just threw CGI on them afterwards for whatever reason nobody is sure of. There’s a big thread on TheForce from a few years back I think, but I’m not eager to go searching through that site for it again.

I’m not really here to argue about the PT, I already said earlier it’s pretty pointless. The horse has been beaten so much it’s not even a horse anymore.
If we’re on the topic anyway, find the writing and the characters in the PT significantly more interesting than those in the OT; maybe not as well executed, but more interesting nonetheless, but I’m not trying to convince anyone so I don’t really care to argue the case.

I was more or less just pointing out that effects mean squat, they’re a tool like any other in filmmaking, and “bad/good CGI” should not be the be-all-end-all of a film’s quality.

Frank your Majesty said:

Nobody says that. TFA’s story is excused by something the prequels completely lacked: interesting characters.

Rey the characterless wide-eye-wonder or Finn the emotionless comic? 😉

I’ll give you interesting characters for R1, but TFA’s characters are about as deep as a puddle.

Tyrphanax said:

Yes, the miniatures in the PT is something that’s well-known. It’s just that they piled so much CGI on top of them that they might as well be CG themselves… and doesn’t really effect the many, many scenes where actors had nothing to interact with or look at but green or blue.

I’m not disagreeing, but how is that any different than just about every Marvel movie, or blockbuster in general made in the past five years? If we’re only talking about effects, isn’t it a bit asinine to complain endlessly about Prequel blue screening and then pay it no mind in just about every other modern film? You could argue it looks better now, but if it didn’t look better a decade later I’d be worried.

Plenty of the OT’s effects look rubbish by today’s standards (ROTJ sail barge scene springs to mind), but they’re hardly a case for blue screen being bad, as they shouldn’t be.

Tyrphanax said:
but the difference is that Rogue One and Civil War will still be decent movies.

No, they won’t be. One day you’ll be embarrassed you felt this way.

I really can’t believe that people are defending the prequels as decent watchable movies on this thread. I’m even more incredulous that the same tend to then tear down tfa and r1 as poor movies.

It’s a strange thing this Star Wars fandom.

Tyrphanax said:

Oh, it isn’t of course. There is a reason we have effects-driven blockbusters today and its in large part thanks to George Lucas.

My point is more that PT gets its rightful bad rap from being just plain bad films moreso than effects in my mind, and I think most here would agree on that point (I would still argue that there is an over-reliance on CGI in the PT, moreso than the Sequel Trilogy or most of the Marvel movies, or at least that it’s used more judiciously, or at least that it’s more forgivable because the movies are better, but that could all be disputed).

The effects used in the PT are very dated at this point (when at the time of release they were very impressive), and I imagine it’ll be the same looking back on Rogue One or Captain America: Civil War seventeen years from now (I remember when the Nintendo 64 looked “lifelike” to me), but the difference is that Rogue One and Civil War will still be decent movies. Going back to the PT today is not only seeing dated CGI, but compounding that on top of the atrocious writing and acting.

I don’t disagree at all for the most part on the technical aspects of the films, I was more referring to the common jab of the prequels being bad films because CGI, without any elaboration. I’m not saying that’s the case here obviously, it was more of a general statement.

Could you elaborate on why you think Rogue One is a decent film, yet Revenge of the Sith isn’t?
Despite ROTS being my favourite Star Wars film I’m not ignorant to its objective flaws, and taking a step back R1 and ROTS have similar issues with effects, characters, plot structure, etc.

I really enjoyed Rogue One but the film is far from being without faults, and I honestly have no doubt that had the film come out in the early 2000s it would be lumped in with those “crap prequel films.” A lot of the complaints levelled at the prequels are glaringly apparent in R1, so why is it excused?
The most hypocritical response I’ve seen is the same people calling the ROTS space battle a “pointless video game cut-scene”, but the Rogue One space battle is brilliant… Why? It has the same plot significance as ROTS and almost the entire thing was created on a computer.
It seems more and more apparent among fans that everything Star Wars is perfectly fine as long as it’s attached to the hip of the OT, any deviation and it’s automatically a huge pile of crap.

Kellythatsit said:

I really can’t believe that people are defending the prequels as decent watchable movies on this thread. I’m even more incredulous that the same tend to then tear down tfa and r1 as poor movies.

And I can’t believe anyone would call TFA anything other than a fan film, but here we are.
Different people have different opinions, it isn’t too shocking.
I also loved Rogue One by the way, never called it a poor movie.

Ryan-SWI said:

I really enjoyed Rogue One but the film is far from being without faults, and I honestly have no doubt that had the film come out in the early 2000s it would be lumped in with those “crap prequel films.” A lot of the complaints levelled at the prequels are glaringly apparent in R1, so why is it excused?

Actually RLM dislikes Rouge one. Not as much as the prequels but he still disliked it. Personally I find it a really impressive movie given how paper thin the premise is.

RLM also glossed over most of TFA’s most controversial faults and ignored things they complained about endlessly in their Ep. I - III reviews, so I don’t really hold what they have to say in high regard.
I thought Rogue One was very good all things considered, not without its faults but I was pleasantly surprised by it.

Ryan-SWI said:

I’ll give you interesting characters for R1, but TFA’s characters are about as deep as a puddle.

This is literally the first time I’ve seen someone express this opinion, even here where every single opinion possible is expressed.

TV’s Frink said:

Ryan-SWI said:

I’ll give you interesting characters for R1, but TFA’s characters are about as deep as a puddle.

This is literally the first time I’ve seen someone express this opinion, even here where every single opinion possible is expressed.

Do you hang out anywhere other than OT?.. TFA being a disappointment to a lot of people isn’t news. I’m sure the people who just wanted fan-service were more than happy and more power to them, but I want more from a Star Wars film than [Insert Iconic Trade Mark Visual Here #72479], over an interesting story or characters.

Haarspalter said:

Ryan-SWI said:

TV’s Frink said:

Ryan-SWI said:

I’ll give you interesting characters for R1, but TFA’s characters are about as deep as a puddle.

This is literally the first time I’ve seen someone express this opinion, even here where every single opinion possible is expressed.

TFA being a disappointment to a lot of people isn’t news. I’m sure the people who just wanted fan-service were more than happy and more power to them, but I want more from a Star Wars film than [Insert Iconic Trade Mark Visual Here #72479], over an interesting story or characters.

What are you talking about? R1 is cluttered with fan service on highly distracting measures.

Please, tell me the difference between the fan service in TFA and the fan service in R1.

When did I say it wasn’t? Don’t put words in my mouth to try and bait me.
I said I wanted a decent story and characters over just fan service.
That’s not to say that Rogue One wasn’t full of fan service, just that I thought it attempted to have actual depth beyond that. Maybe it wasn’t as technically proficient as TFA, but at least it took a chance to be more than glossy popcorn fodder.

Honestly I don’t recall Rouge one having allot of fanservice. Force awakens on the other hand. Well, let us see
dialogues lifted straight from the OT. Check
Things from the old films being shown for a second or so for no other reason then to remind us that the movie takes place in the same universe as the OT and to get the ‘‘hey I remember that’’ reaction from the audience.Check

Rouge one has none of these problems as far as I remember.

HP. Lovecraft said:
Rouge one has none of these problems as far as I remember.

Orly?

Alderaan said:

HP. Lovecraft said:
Rouge one has none of these problems as far as I remember.

Orly?

As blatant as
"LOOK GUYS IT’S THE CHESS BOARD"
“LOOK GUYS IT’S THE TRAINING DROID”
"LOOK GUYS IT’S THE PARSEC LINE AGAIN"
No, not really, at least not on that level.

Ryan-SWI said:

As blatant as
"LOOK GUYS IT’S THE CHESS BOARD"
“LOOK GUYS IT’S THE TRAINING DROID”
"LOOK GUYS IT’S THE PARSEC LINE AGAIN"
No, not really, at least not on that level.

Yes, as bad as:
“LOOK GUYS IT’S THE YOU JUST WATCH YOURSELF GUY AND HIS PAL BUTTFACE PASSING THROUGH”
“LOOK GUYS IT’S JIMMY SMITS JUST STANDING THERE BUT AT LEAST HE WAS IN THAT ONE OTHER MOVIE”
“LOOK GUYS IT’S IMPERIAL WALKERS JUST BLOWING UP THEIR OWN BASE FOR NO GOOD REASON”
“LOOK GUYS IT’S A DROID TELLING US ABOUT THE ODDS AGAIN”
“LOOK GUYS THERE’S A SHOT THAT LOOKS ALMOST EXACTLY LIKE ONE FROM DAGOBAH”
“LOOK GUYS THERE’S C3PO and R2D2 WHO DO NOTHING IN THE WHOLE MOVIE EXCEPT SAY HI WE’RE HERE”

Both TFA and R1 are guilty of all this nonsense rubbish. It’s not either/or.

Alderaan said:

“LOOK GUYS THERE’S A SHOT THAT LOOKS ALMOST EXACTLY LIKE ONE FROM DAGOBAH”

Quick interjection, which shot was that? Because not once at any point in the three times I’ve seen the film did I even think of Dagobah.

Ryan-SWI said:

TV’s Frink said:

Ryan-SWI said:

I’ll give you interesting characters for R1, but TFA’s characters are about as deep as a puddle.

This is literally the first time I’ve seen someone express this opinion, even here where every single opinion possible is expressed.

Do you hang out anywhere other than OT?.. TFA being a disappointment to a lot of people isn’t news. I’m sure the people who just wanted fan-service were more than happy and more power to them, but I want more from a Star Wars film than [Insert Iconic Trade Mark Visual Here #72479], over an interesting story or characters.

It’s like you didn’t even see the part of your post that I quoted.

TV’s Frink said:

Ryan-SWI said:

TV’s Frink said:

Ryan-SWI said:

I’ll give you interesting characters for R1, but TFA’s characters are about as deep as a puddle.

This is literally the first time I’ve seen someone express this opinion, even here where every single opinion possible is expressed.

Do you hang out anywhere other than OT?.. TFA being a disappointment to a lot of people isn’t news. I’m sure the people who just wanted fan-service were more than happy and more power to them, but I want more from a Star Wars film than [Insert Iconic Trade Mark Visual Here #72479], over an interesting story or characters.

It’s like you didn’t even see the part of your post that I quoted.

The opinion of the characters being crap is not a new one. I know elaboration isn’t your thing but I thought the point was pretty obvious.

I have seen a few complaints about TFA having poor characters. Not many but a few. I’ve seen a few people say R1 had great characters. Not many but a few.

I’ve seen no one say both those things together.

And no, since you asked, I don’t spend time outside of here discussing Star Wars, except an occasional post on non-SW sites, and with my wife and daughters.